5.  On 8 October 1993 the applicant, following her temporary suspension from work, instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court against her employer, company D.
6.  In December 1993, following her dismissal from work, the applicant instituted further proceedings against D. before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court. The actions were joined.
7.  On 8 December 1995 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court upheld the applicant’s action concerning the suspension and dismissal and rejected the part of the applicant’s action against the decision of D. ordering the applicant to pay compensation. D. appealed.
8.  On 29 May 1997 the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld the decision on rejection of the applicant’s action against the order to pay compensation and annulled the decision upholding the applicant’s action and remitted the case back to the first instance court.
9.  On 11 September 1998 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court upheld the applicant’s action against the dismissal and ordered D. to pay the applicant the outstanding salaries for the period between the dismissal and the issuing of the decision and dismissed the action against the suspension. D. appealed.
11.  On 12 August 1999 the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings against D. before the Ljubljana Local Court on the basis of the final judgment issued in the labour proceedings, concerning the payment of SIT 4,931,874.
12.  On 18 October 1999 the Ljubljana Local Court issued an enforcement order against D. D. lodged an objection.
13.  On 5 April 2000 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the objection of D. and upheld the enforcement order. The enforcement order became final.
14.  On 18 July 2000 Ljubljana Local Court sent the enforcement order for execution to the Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Payments.
15.  On 25 September 2000 the Ljubljana District Court decided to open bankruptcy proceedings against D.
16.  On 18 November 2000 the applicant lodged her outstanding claims against D., including those subject to enforcement proceedings, in the bankruptcy proceedings.
17.  On 19 December 2000 the Ljubljana District Court in the bankruptcy proceedings acknowledged the applicant’s claims, apart from a claim concerning redundancy payment.
18.  On 9 February 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings concerning the redundancy payment before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court.
19.  On 6 March 2001 the Ljubljana Local Court suspended the enforcement proceedings due to the pending bankruptcy proceedings.
20.  On 9 April 2001 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court issued a declaratory default judgment acknowledging the applicant’s claim concerning redundancy payment.
21.  On 16 September 2005 the Ljubljana District Court terminated the bankruptcy proceedings and ordered D. to be struck off the court register of companies. The applicant received no payment from the bankrupt’s estate.
22.  On 30 September 2005 the notice of terminated bankruptcy proceedings and the strike-off of D. from the court register of companies was published in the Official Gazette.
23.  According to the applicant she was not aware of the termination of the bankruptcy proceedings and the strike-off of D. from the court register until 3 May 2006 when she inspected the case file. Further to her discovery she requested the Ljubljana District Court for a copy of the decision of 16 September 2005 which she received on 12 May 2006.
24.  On 11 April 2011 the Ljubljana Local Court stayed the enforcement proceedings due to terminated bankruptcy proceedings and strike-off of D. from the court register.
25.  On 17 September 2010 the respondent Government were given notice of the application. The Government was asked to provide information as to whether section 25 of the 2006 Act applied in respect of the present case, which would enable the applicant to avail herself of domestic settlement proceedings before the State Attorney’s Office.
26.  Subsequently, on 3 February 2011, the Government submitted that section 25 of the 2006 Act was not applicable in the present case since they considered that the application had been lodged out of the six-month time-limit. Therefore, the Government refused to offer the applicant a settlement proposal under section 25 of the 2006 Act.